Fleet Service Workers Now Boarding Class-Action California Labor Lawsuit
At issue are allegations made by unionized fleet service workers employed at San Francisco International Airport by US Airways Inc. (US Airways). In a complaint certified as a class-action lawsuit April 4 by a California federal judge, some 554 full- and part-time fleet service workers allege they have been stiffed out of overtime pay and meal breaks by their employer. According to California labor code, workers are legally entitled to meal breaks and overtime pay.
The airline, however, argues that provisions in the Railway Labor Act, under which contracts and collective bargaining agreements are negotiated with the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) union, trump state labor statutes. Together with an interpretation of California labor and employment law that US Airways claims exempts a so-called shift trade policy from overtime obligations under the federal labor code, the defendant held that class-action status should not be granted.
However, US District Judge Charles R. Breyer aligned with the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
The fleet service workers are responsible for the loading and off-loading of planes, de-icing tasks, and establishing ramps to the aircraft. Collective bargaining agreements set out when meal breaks are taken and when overtime is paid, according to the unique demands of an industry that puts a great deal of importance on the timeliness of scheduled flights at a busy airport. There are also provisions for shift swaps, so-called “pick-up” shifts, and other provisions unique to the airline industry.
However, as the workers perform their tasks in the state of California, California and labor law comes into play. Lead plaintiffs in the class action, Joseph Timbang Angeles and Noe Lastimosa, contend that members of the class have been stiffed from overtime and have also worked off the clock by way of various pre-shift and post-shift activities.
The defendants claim that any employee who clocks in a few minutes earlier than his or her established start time, and/or clocks out a few minutes beyond the normal end of his or her shift, is not necessarily performing work.
Percolating in the background is the ongoing need to ensure a plane is ready to go and a flight is allowed to leave on time. Were a worker to forego a rest or meal period in order to ensure a plane is readied on schedule, is that meal period made up later? Is there a wage provision to compensate for missed meal periods?
US Airways holds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal airline labor laws. The plaintiffs disagree, and their California labor lawsuit - filed in November 2012 - will now move forward as a class action. The case is Angeles et al. v. US Airways Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-05860, US District Court for the Northern District of California.
No Comments